Bush angers abortion crowd, again
The Bush administration is working on a proposal before the president leaves office to prevent recipients of federal money from discriminating against health care workers who refuse on moral grounds to perform abortion or sterilization procedures.
The Department of Health and Human Services will issue the rule in the coming days. President-elect Barack Obama plans to undo the rule, but that will require several months.
Obama has said the proposal will raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive health services, like abortion and some contraceptives. Michael Leavitt, the health and human services secretary, said that was not the purpose.
Others had different objections:
The Ohio Health Department said the rule “could force family planning providers to hire employees who may refuse to do their jobs” - a concern echoed by Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Under the Civil Rights Act, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s religious practices, unless the employer can show that doing so would cause ‘undue hardship on the conduct of its business.’




WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!


















back to top79 Comments to “Bush angers abortion crowd, again”
Nice headline. “Abortion Crowd”.
Report comment as offensive
If this was such a good idea, why has Bush waited 8 years to enact it?
Report comment as offensive
Hmm…Bush could have done this 8 years ago. But he waits until a month before he leaves office, KNOWING that it will be undone immediately? And you guys still think he’s on your side? And that he’s got guts?
Somebody’s chuckling all the way back from two electoral college visits.
Report comment as offensive
Can anybody spell S-U-C-K-E-R-S?
Report comment as offensive
“Under the Civil Rights Act, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s religious practices, unless the employer can show that doing so would cause ‘undue hardship on the conduct of its business.”
Huh. Well if “Family Planning” is all they’re doing, then it wouldn’t be an issue would it? As it is, “Family Planning” seems to be a euphemism for abortion mills- or in other words, a euphemism for “Planning to Kill the Family”. They should just change their name to “Abortions R Us” and things would be just fine…. Then if someone refuses upon religious or moral grounds to enable an abortion when employed by abortionists, they could be fired because it would cause ‘undue hardship on the conduct of the business’.
Report comment as offensive
Once the govt gives anyone public monies (car dealers, AIG execs) can we legitimately say anything along the lines of “We’ll give you this but under no circumstances will you be then be allowed to use the money on X, Y or Z”??
Make it Man, I like Dr Laura’s name for PPFA: Planned Un-parenthood.
Report comment as offensive
#3 I suspect we’ll see a flurry of last minute final hours activities from Bush. Though nothing at all like all those pardons Clinton sold in exchange for presidential library donations, I’d imagine.
Report comment as offensive
Well, when Obama repeals this reasonable action, the folks that have the wan hope that Obama cares for the culture of life will see the truth. We know that Obama showed no mercy even on the issue of mercy for infants born alive during botched abortions.
Report comment as offensive
When will people learn that rights only apply to those on the left now. If you are on the right you have no rights especially when it comes to religion, abortion, speech, gays, immigration. confiscation of personal property or guns.
Get used to it.
Report comment as offensive
sawgunner post 7,
I sense that we are confounding regulations with pardons here.
What this topic appears to address is a set of last minute regulatons being promulgated by the Bush administration. And I suggest that it is a fair question to ask that if these were such good ideas, why are thye only being promulgated at the last minute?
Pardons are a second area of interest but have a different behavior than regulations. While the regulation activitiy is not speculation, it is happening right now, pardons are speculative at this point: they have yet to happen.
I will speculate that for some technical reasons, however, that the sheer number of people covered by last minute pardons issued by Bush will be extremely large and probably dwarf what we have seen previously. We will get a better idea as December and Junauary play out up to January 20th.
Report comment as offensive
Peter leavitt post 8,
I suggest that your characterization of the regulation is perhaps highly colored by your ideological position here?
It is just possible that others with different assumptions will characterize these regulations very differently?
Report comment as offensive
llama post 9,
so please show me how in the new administration you are:
1) forced to enter into gay marriage?
2) forced to have an abortion?
I am having trouble seeing where your rights are being constrained, at least within the context of the social issues which are being discussed. Can you clarify how your rights are being constrained on social issues?
Report comment as offensive
Musing post 12,
There is no such thing as “gay marriage”…That is like saying “Christian pornography”–no such thing. Marriage takes male and female. “Gay”ness takes sodomizing.–Please don’t confuse the two. Thank you.
Report comment as offensive
truthtllr post 13,
perhaps you are unaware of the law in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Gay marriages are every bit as much a marriage as any other marriage in these states.
What needs to be remembered is that marriage is a contractual arrangement controlled by the civil authorities. Religious authorities are empowered to perform marriages only at the will of the civilian authorities.
Report comment as offensive
12. When “Gay Marriage” is the norm will I be forced to go against my religious beliefs and help gay couple adopt children or cater or photograph their wedding?
Gays don’t want tolerance they want affirmation.
Report comment as offensive
kbells post 15,
why would you have to do any of these things?
What you will have to do is that if you offer services to the public you will find that there are a number of anti-discrimination laws which will be enforced.
The solution of course is simple, do not participate in these activities in ways which cause them to be governed by these anti-discrimination laws.
Report comment as offensive
15
My husband is a surgeon, and does not believe in bigotry. Should you need his life saving services, should he be allowed to refuse to render them based on his beliefs?
Report comment as offensive
Duncan post 17,
Excellent point!
Report comment as offensive
So in other words, people of faith shouldn’t do anything, even something as inane as photography, if they oppose gay marriage or abortion or other left leaning issues? Should we therefore force Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the flag? After all, they live in this country, and that is part of being an American. Force Jews to eat pork? Why not? They chose to live in a non kosher society after all. How about force Mormons to drink coffee? With all those Starbucks around, you know that some of them MUST employ Mormons. People of faith being barred from certain professions because of their religious beliefs is no different than barring gays or blacks from certain occupations. The simple fact of the matter is, performing abortions is not crucial to being an RN, nor is photographing gay marriages crucial to being a photographer. If a situation makes someone that uncomfortable, demanding that they do it anyway to conform to YOUR beliefs, especially when there are plenty of people willing to provide such services to gays and lesbians smacks of simply trying to target people you disagree with.
Report comment as offensive
Duncan, does your surgeon husband find saving lives morally objectionable? Your argument is specious. No one is saying that people should be able to deny all services to gays and lesbians, or people who support abortions, only services which would require the person providing them to do something which would violate their conscience and moral standards. The government has no right to punish people for simply doing or not doing something that follows their conscience.
Report comment as offensive
Praise God for George W. Bush.
Report comment as offensive
Barracuda;
My point is that the refusal to provide services is inevitably a one way street. My husband would never allow someone to die under him without doing everything in his power to save that person’s life, regardless of their belief, however bigoted it may be. However, we can be denied services, have our marriage dissolved, and I’m sure that if it was possible, have our children taken away from us, all based on the beliefs of others, with complete disregard for our concience and moral standards.
Report comment as offensive
Barracudda post 19,
hmm I don’t think any one is forced to salute the flag. No one is forced to eat pork. No one is forced to drink coffee.
However, if you offer public services covered by anti-discrimination laws, then of course you must obey the antidiscrimination laws. This is a requirement for everyone.
I sense that you seem to be raising faulty analogies here.
Report comment as offensive
I have continued to challenge those who oppose gay marriage to demonstrate how the presence of gay marriage directly injures them.
So far, the only issues raised appear to have the form of “I don’t like it and don’t want to have to admit its existence”.
It should be noted that the same was said of miscegenation laws until the late 60s. History suggests that gay marriage is going down a similar path. Certainly the world has not come crashing down in Massachusetts and it is now about five years since gay marriage was allowed in Massachusetts.
Report comment as offensive
Maybe the problem is with the anti-discrimination laws.
Report comment as offensive
One must remember that conservative Christians were at the forefront of the opposition to integration and women’s rights. Only when it became socially and legally untenable did the majority of them relent and grudgingly accept women’s rights and racial equality. Still, if they had their druthers, they’d turn back the clock if they could. There is still a large longing among them for the America of the 1940’s and 50’s, when segregation was still in force. We still see their nostalgia and bitterness played out every day on here.
And make no mistake - many of them aren’t just opposed to abortion, but to all birth control. They’d make it illegal in heartbeat if they could. Many in the anti-choice movement make no bones that their ultimate goal is to make all forms of birth control illegal again.
I suspect Bush is promulgating these regulations to go out on a high-note with the conservative Christian movement. He’s attempting to create an environment where abortion is technically still legal, but impossible to obtain. You’d think he’d take a lesson from the voters of the 3 states that turned down attempts to go down the anti-choice path just a few weeks ago.
Thankfully the damage can be limited to a few months. Hopefully Obama will do the right thing and get them overturned.
Report comment as offensive
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20081119_eHarmony_settles_with_N_J__over_same-sex_matches.html
Can I sue the local mens store for sexism? Or the Children’s Place for ageism? Apparently.
Report comment as offensive
kbells post 25,
that what those supporting the Jim Crow laws said.
Report comment as offensive
kbells post 27,
why I do suggest that you should perhaps try!
Let me know how it comes out!
Report comment as offensive
28. Huh.
Report comment as offensive
kbells post 30,
those in favor of Jim Crow laws suggested that there were problems with the proposed anti-discrimination laws.
You find yourself in very interesting company.
Report comment as offensive
31. Alright then. I’ve agree on certain points with people I disagreed with on other points.
Report comment as offensive
Don’t feed the trolls, KBells.
Report comment as offensive
kbells post 32,
actually I suggest that the simplest approach here would be to provide a clear fudnamental explanation on why you feel that:
1) gay marriage iunures your directly
2) gay marriage is inappropriate
Right now I belioeve all I am seeing is an argument of the form “I don’t like gay marriage and dont want to admit it exists”. This is, to say the least, a thin argument for an anti-gay marriage position.
Do you have a more substantive argument against gay marrriage and why gay marriage would directly injure you personally?
Report comment as offensive
Outkast - 33
We have a few
Report comment as offensive
Which posters are trolls, Vicky?
Report comment as offensive
The non-trolls all know without telling, Lumpy.
Report comment as offensive
Lumpy is obviously not an evangelical pro-life voter and exists just to stir up trouble, so why bother even responding to him/her/it?
Report comment as offensive
Report comment as offensive
“hmm I don’t think any one is forced to salute the flag. No one is forced to eat pork. No one is forced to drink coffee.”
Well, yes. That’s called sarcasm. Sometimes I use it to make a point, in this case, how ridiculous it is to try and force someone to do things that go against their deepest held beliefs. The government frankly has no business demanding that people be “nondiscriminatory.” For one thing, the government cannot know what people are thinking, so people who are determined to discriminate will find a way anyway. Second, it’s an attempt at thought control-and as disdainful as we may find racism or other prejudices, it is a very dangerous slippery slope to try outlawing ways of thinking. History has proven that repeatedly. Either the culture will change or it won’t. Trying to cram change down people’s throats whether they like it or not is counterproductive and just plain tyrannical. Should we try to prevent discrimination? Sure–but laws to that effect aren’t necessary, except maybe in hiring. Would you patronize a Denny’s, as you pointed out, that refused to serve black people? Fact is, that a business that did that in this day and age would not last long unless there was a very large racist community supporting it, and it would never be able to be more than a local business-no way would a company like that be able to grow once people knew their business practices. Forcing people of faith to violate their conscience to keep their jobs is wrong, regardless of how you dress it up.
Report comment as offensive
“One must remember that conservative Christians were at the forefront of the opposition to integration and women’s rights. Only when it became socially and legally untenable did the majority of them relent and grudgingly accept women’s rights and racial equality.”
Sources? This is a very specious argument unless you back it up. Fact is, Christians have often been at the forefront of movements to fight injustice. The black church was instrumental in fighting racism (the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, anyone?)The Quaker Church was involved with fighting racism and slavery as far back as the 1600s-and made up many “conductors” on the Underground Railroad. Another group which helped fight segregation and the aftereffects is one you may have heard of: The Salvation Army (which hasn’t always just stood around at Christmas collecting funds.)Fact is, though many people calling themselves Christians have done horrible things throughout history, the church has also been a major force for good in the world-something conveniently forgotten in the here and now.
“Still, if they had their druthers, they’d turn back the clock if they could. There is still a large longing among them for the America of the 1940’s and 50’s, when segregation was still in force. We still see their nostalgia and bitterness played out every day on here.
And make no mistake - many of them aren’t just opposed to abortion, but to all birth control. They’d make it illegal in heartbeat if they could. Many in the anti-choice movement make no bones that their ultimate goal is to make all forms of birth control illegal again.”
Must be nice to be able to read other people’s minds. Wish I had that power. Seriously, how can you make such a blatantly editorial statement and try to present it as fact with a straight face?
You think Christians don’t practice birth control? Yes, there are groups who are morally opposed, but you can hardly lump us all into that category. Maybe you should remember that even conservative Christians aren’t as monolithic a group as you apparently think.
Report comment as offensive
Better late than never on President Bushes olive branch to the pro-life crowd. He gave us at least one pro-life supreme court justice as well. Could he have done more and done more sooner rather than later, of course.
Would and will the Obama administration be as respective to the pro-life crowd and slowly and cautiously bring in their left leaning policies on abortion or will they slam Americans right from the getgo with new pro-abortion legislation as a kickback to the special interest groups that helped elect Obama and the Democrats into leadership. I guess we’ll find out shortly.
Report comment as offensive
I loathe continuing this thread here, but since the topic is already out there:
If two men or two women love each other and want to be married, why are those that oppose this considered among other things full of hate and lack tolerance, yet…
if two women absolutely love one man, or two men adore one woman and in either situation all 3 desire to enter into a polygamous marriage, those that oppose this are considered reasonable and right?
Who are we to stop someone from having several spouses if they love each other.
Report comment as offensive
Baracudda post 40,
no my comment:
““hmm I don’t think any one is forced to salute the flag. No one is forced to eat pork. No one is forced to drink coffee.””
is not sarcasm. Rather it shows the fundamental failure of kbells argument.
Lets look at her examples of kosher and coffee.
No one makes a person not eat kosher. No one makes a person drink coffee. Likewise, no one is arguing that we are going to make you like gay marriage.
But when we get to the world controlled by anti-discriination law, the issue kbells raised, just because you eat klosher does not mean you can make everyone else eat kosher. Just because you do not drink coffee does not mean you can force everyone else to not drink coffe. And just because you dont personally like gay marriage, unless you can show a direct personal injury, you are not in a position to argue that gay marriage should also be controlled.
Now I have asked repeatedly for kbells and others to provide a clear example of direct injury to them as a result of gay marriage. They have not done so.
I suggest, in the context of victoria’s trolling comment, that those who defend the illegality of gay marriage without demonstrating a clear direct injury are the trolls.
It is becoming increasingly clear that they understand the failure of their argument. That they persist in their failed argument brings to mind a maxim which is perhaps appropriate here.
In any event I have been holding a dialog of this form in WMB for about two weeks. AND SO FAR NO ONE HAS PROVIDED ANY COHERENT REASON WHY THE STATE SHOULD RESTRICT GAY MARRIAGE.
WMB is one of the more insightful Christian conservative blogs. That WMB posters are unable to provide a coherent justification to restrict gay marriage I suggest is a very telling statement.
And Massachusetts and Connecticut have heard this vacuousness of anti-gay marriage argument loud and clear.
In short, the clock is ticking.
But keep defending the battlements of this lost cause. It probably keeps you from engaging in mischief which could be truly problematic.
Report comment as offensive
What is more interesting is that there is perhaps a moderately sustainable argument. This argument, however, would require:
1) going back to first principles
2) flies in the face of previous supreme court rulings (which quickly show the qeakness of the argument)
3) and make the theocratic perspective of the argument all too crystal clear
So it is understandable that, despite prodding on my part, it has not been raised.
Howerver without raising an argument of this or similar form, the personal preference weakness of the remaining argument is all too clear.
And in general (d note the in general!
) the U.S. considers it bad form to compromise individual rights based on the preferences of some.
Report comment as offensive
Baracudda post 40,
your statement here:
“The government frankly has no business demanding that people be “nondiscriminatory.””
appears to be a direct alllusion to my “Jim Crow law supporters” comment.
The courts have clearly found your apparent position illegal.
Report comment as offensive
Barracuddda post 40,
and note that in your argument:
“The government frankly has no business demanding that people be “nondiscriminatory.””
you appear to effectively prove Anlir’s observation. I suspect Anlir needs no further evidence, at least for the specific case of yourself.
Report comment as offensive
I must first thank Baracudda and kbells for their continued efforts to discuss and for their honesty.
I must say, however, that the discussion seems to have taken a turn I had not anticipated. With the apparent arguments by kbelss and Baracudda against the present anti-discirmination laws it would seem we have introduced two new and different concepts:
1) whether intentional or not, the effect of arguing to relax the anti-discrimination laws is to bring us to the social status quo of the fifties and early sixties in this country
2) a look at the recent electoral results suggests that over half the country has moved far beyond the social position of the fifities and early sixties
Is it indeed the perspective of some posters on this blog that we should move back to the social status quo of the fifties and sixties? Are you seriously suggesting that this would improve our country?
And are you so out of touch with the present state of America that you would even unintentionally suggest actions which would have that effect?
And the answers here, I suggest, provide a platform to consider exactly why the conservative movement finds itself in the state that it is presently in.
Report comment as offensive
If we can deny jobs to pro-life healthcare workers, then I suppose we can deny jobs to anti-death penalty criminal justice workers. Right?
Report comment as offensive
Musing, I didn’t give up. I had to go to bed. But if I have to choose between giving up a business I have work hard to establish or violate my conscience than I have been hurt.
Report comment as offensive
2) a look at the recent electoral results suggests that over half the country has moved far beyond the social position of the fifities and early sixties.
Then we don’t need these laws any more do we?
Report comment as offensive
amphipolis post 49,
no health care worker are not denied jobs unless they refuse to perform the job.
Report comment as offensive
kbells post 50,
this is the first time you have raised a substantive issue.
However, when you opened your business you presumably opened it in such a manner that it fit under the non-discrimination laws which have been in place since about the late 60s to early 70s.
That was a choice on your part.
You can restructure your company so it is not subject to anti-discrimination laws, but this will also have consequences.
What you can not do, and this was fought out in the 60s, is argue that the anti-discriminaton laws should not apply to you.
Report comment as offensive
kbells post 51,
actually your posts continue to suggest that the laws are as important as ever!
The majority of the country has apparenlty moved on.
A minority apparently has not.
If you lo